JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel. 2. This petition has been filed aggrieved of the order dated 1.11.1999 whereby the Deputy Director, State Insurance, Jaipur rejected the Insurance Claim No. 139--2000 in respect of Gajendra Singh Chouhan, Cleaner, who died on account of burn injuries on 10.3.1997. 3. According to the petitioner, in an accident which took place on 6.2.1997 when said Shri Gajendra Singh was trying to burn a gas stove, he suffered bum injuries to the extent of 55% and as a result he was admitted in the hospital and while being under the treatment he expired on 10.3.1997. 4. The said person was insured by a group insurance scheme with the respondents for which application Annex-4 was filed by the said person, who was working as a Cleaner in the Ground Water Department, Barmen. The said 154 claim has been rejected on the ground that said person Gajendra Singh was under the influence of liquor at the time of accident on 6.2.1997 and therefore on account of violation of the condition of the said group insurance. Which is reproduced in Annex 3, the said claim could not be accepted. The said condition in clause Vill is quoted below on the basis of which the said claim was rejected. " ikWfylh ds ykHk nq?kZVuk ls iwoZ gh fo|eku fdlh 'kkjhfjd fodkj ls gqbZ {kfr ij ns; ugha gksxsA ekufld vlarqyu vFkok ekufld 'kksd ls gqbZ {kfr Hkh ikWfylh esa of.kZr 'kkjhfjd pksV dh ifjHkk"kk esa lfEefyr ugha gSA " 5. Mr. Aggarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the medical report Annex.-1 on the record does not indicate in any manner that the accident happened because of influence of liquor nor does it clearly stipulate that the said person was drunk at that moment. He has also submitted that unless the influence of liquor is shown to the extent that one would lose his mental balance, the aforesaid condition of the group insurance cannot be said to hive been violated. He has also submitted that unless the influence of liquor is shown to the extent that one would lose his mental balance, the aforesaid condition of the group insurance cannot be said to hive been violated. He further submitted that the reliance placed by the respondents was on a statement recorded of wife of said person Smt. Kaushaliya the present petitioner on 31.3.1997 and that of his son's wife Smt. Madhu in a bleb they have stated that the said person Gajendra Singh used to drink liquor quite often and in the statement of the wife it is also stated that on that day also he was drunk, is not sufficient to reject the claim of the petitioner. 6. In the opinion of this Court firstly, the statements recorded by the police akin to Section 161 Cr.P.C. is not admissible in evidence as such without any corroboration by statement in a Court of law. Secondly, the medical report which was the best evidence in the facts and circumstances of the case vide Annex.-1, does not establish in any manner the influence of liquor on said person Gajendra Singh to the extent that he could be said to have lost his mental balance while trying to lit up the said stove. In the absence of said fact or allegation of the person being under the influence of liquor to an extent where he loses the mental balance having been proved, in the opinion of this Court, the claim of the petitioner for insurance could not have been rejected by the concerned authority. 7. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and Annex.5 order dated 1.11.1999 is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to process the insurance claim of the petitioner on merits and if the petitioner is otherwise found entitled to the said insurance claim, the same may be disbursed to her within a period of three months from today. 8. The writ petition accordingly stands allowed. No order as to costs.Writ petition allowed *******